You nailed it. The amount we waste exceeds what we actually need. It's the disposable attitude that ultimately causes most of the pollution. Quite a few people have been saying this since the late 70s, but nobody wants to listen. When the highest societal value is making the most money, common sense goes out the window.

Originally posted by Ttommy: When I see the gubbermints and big business stop insulting my intelligence with what they do, then I'll take this save the planet crap seriously. Until such time I'll pollute and do what the hell I want knowing that whatever I do is completely insignificant and makes no difference to anything what so ever.

Change begins with you//

When you see something like this about to be wasted, you know all the save the planet BS is just something pushed on the sheeple for big business to cash in on.

When this is the mentality of Governments and big business, to say It's up to the individuals is naive in the extreme. When companies who have huge influence start putting the environment over profit and stop the wastage alone it will be more significant than all the efforts of conscious people put together.

You are doing a good bit; diverting from the "waste stream" and raising awareness!Disgusting isn't it! I've done a lot of front line research in garbology myself- and change is happening- In Canada the most important change we need is to get rid of the con government.

"Ocean acidification," the shifting of the ocean's water toward the acidic side of its chemical balance, has been driven by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations thanks to human fossil fuel-burning combustion engines, power plants and furnaces. Increasingly, corrosive seawater is dwelling up to the surface, for example, in the U.S. along the West Coast, affecting the $111 million shellfish industry in the Pacific Northwest, and along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico.

When saltwater becomes more acidic, it harms the shell-making ability of oysters, clams, scallops, and mussels. Acidic saltwater poses a threat to other marine life, too, and thus endangers the entire ocean food web. Which puts those working in the fishing and seafood industries at serious risk of losing their livelihoods, too.

"A lot of people out here I talk to don't believe in climate change, but ocean acidification — to them that's real — because they can see it eating into their livelihoods. The chemistry is really simple and really inevitable: More carbon in the air means more carbon in the ocean, and there is no getting around it."-- Dr. Burke Hales, Oregon State University, Corvallis

The photos show what happens to a pteropod’s shell when placed in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100. The shell slowly dissolves over 45 days.

Photo credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Nov. 26, 2012_________________________________________________"To be scientifically literate is to empower yourselfto know when someone else is full of b.s."-- Neil de Grasse Tysson

The pH scale is logarithmic and as a result, each whole pH value below 7 is ten times more acidic than the next higher value. For example, pH 4 is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 6. The same holds true for pH values above 7, each of which is ten times more alkaline (another way to say basic) than the next lower whole value.

Seawater pH is limited to the range 7.5 to 8.4. A 30% change in pH of seawater, ie. 0.33 pH, is well within the natural range of variation, and no cause for alarm.

The U.S. produces ~20% of the world's GHG emissions, and 27% of that comes from toxic polluting coal-fired electricit­y. China produces ~24% of the world's GHG emissions, and about 40% of that comes from toxic polluting coal-fired electricit­y. Only half of China's coal burning is for electricit­y, and toxic pollution controls in China are practicall­y non-existe­nt.

The energy policy of the People's Republic of China is a policy decided on by the Central Government with regard to energy and energy resources. The country is currently the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases according to a Dutch research agency.[1][2][3] However, China's per capita emissions are still far behind some of the developed countries. In addition, China is also the world's leading renewable energy producer.[4]Solar powerMain article: Solar power in China

China has become the world's largest consumer of solar energy.[46] It is the largest producer of solar water heaters, accounting for 60 percent of the world’s solar hot water heating capacity, and the total installed heaters is estimated at 30 million households.[47] Solar PV production in China is also in rapid development. In 2007, 0.82 GW of Solar PV was produced, second only to Japan.[4]

As part of the stimulus plan of "Golden Sun", announced by the government in 2009, several developments and projects became part of the milestones for the development of solar technology in China. These include the agreement signed by LDK for a 500MW solar project, a new thin film solar plant developed by Anwell Technologies in Henan province using its own proprietary solar technology and the solar power plant project in a desert, headed by First Solar and Ordos City. The effort to drive the renewable energy use in China was further assured after the speech by the Chinese President, given at the UN climate summit on 22 Sept 2009 in New York, pledging that China will plan to have 15% of its energy from renewable sources within a decade. China is using solar power in houses, buildings, and cars.[48][49][50]Wind powerMain article: Wind power in China

China's total wind power capacity reached 2.67 gigawatts (GW) in 2006, 6.05 GW by 2007, 12.2 GW by 2008, 25 GW by 2009, and 44.7 GW by 2010, making China the world leader in installed wind power generation capacity.[51][52]Energy conservationGeneral Work Plan for Energy Conservation

The General Work Plan for Energy Conservation and Pollutant Discharge Reduction aims to cut energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (energy intensity) by 20% over the course of the Eleventh Five-Year Plan which ended in 2010, as well as cutting the discharge of major pollutants by 10%. Implementation involved a variety of measures, including increased use of renewable energy, revised pricing for primary energy sources and electricity, export restrictions on energy intensive and highly polluting products, and tax incentives for pollution-reduction projects. Central and local government will switch to low-energy lighting, and will be compelled to purchase only the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly electrical products

Officials were warned that violating energy conservation and environmental protection laws would lead to criminal proceedings, while failure to achieve targets would be taken into account in the performance assessment of officials and business leaders.[15]

After achieving less than half the 4% reduction in energy intensity targeted for 2006, all companies and local and national government were asked to submit detailed plans for compliance before June 30, 2007.[53][54]

During the first four years of the plan, energy intensity improved by 14.4%, but dropped sharply in the first quarter of 2010. In August 2010, China announced the closing of 2,087 steel mills, cement works and other energy-intensive factories by September 30, 2010. The factory closings were made more palatable by a labor shortage in much of China making it easier for workers to find other jobs.[55]Space heating and air conditioning

A State Council circular issued on June 3, 2007, restricts the temperature of air conditioning in public buildings to no lower than 26 °C in summer (78.8 °F), and of heating to no higher than 20 °C (68 °F) in winter. The sale of inefficient air conditioning units has also been outlawed.[56]Business persons

Chinese billionaires in energy business by Forbes included in 2013 Wang Yusuo & family ($2.4 B) the chairman of the ENN Group, one of China's largest non-government-controlled energy businesses and Huo Qinghua ( $1.1 B) chairman of China Kingho Energy Group, one of the country's largest privately held mining and energy companies, with operations in China, Africa and Mongolia.[57] and in Hong Kong Sit Kwong Lam ($1.35 B) the founder and chairman of Hong Kong-listed Brightoil Petroleum.[58]Public opinion

The Chinese results from the 1st Annual World Environment Review, published on June 5, 2007 revealed that, in a sample of 1024 people (50% male):[59]

88% are concerned about climate change. 97% think their Government should do more to tackle global warming. 63% think that China is too dependent on fossil fuels. 56% think that China is too reliant on foreign oil. 91% think that a minimum 25% of electricity should be generated from renewable energy sources. 61% are concerned about nuclear power. 79% are concerned about carbon dioxide emissions from developing countries. 62% think it appropriate for developed countries to demand restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from developing countries.

Another survey published in August 2007 by China Youth Daily and the British Council sampled 2,500 Chinese people with an average age of 30.1. It showed that 80% of young Chinese are concerned about global warming.[60]Protests

In December 2011 in Haimen, a coastal town of about 120,000 people, residents have protested ongoing for three days (22.12.2011) against plans for another coal-fired power plant. Police were armed with batons and shields and fired teargas to break up demonstrations.[61]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_China

China produces about 30% of the worlds human caused GHGs, the Americans are next with about 20%.... Canada is way down the line at contributing only 2% of the worlds human caused GHGs. It's the Total GHGs produced that effects the planet's oceans.

A plume of radioactive contamination from the damaged Fukushima Nuclear plant in Japan has reached the coast of North America earlier than expected. But while concerns for the plume are making headlines, a far more serious effect of human activity is already having dire consequences for West Coast fisheries.

But thanks to the immense size of the Pacific, radiation levels measured so far on this side of the ocean are extremely low trace amounts - well within safety guidelines for drinking water. Those levels are not expected to rise significantly, because of the dilution effect of the plume crossing thousands of kilometers of open ocean.

This is not to say the problem has been solved; the ocean is just giving us some time while the source of contamination is fixed.

As part of the monitoring of the contamination, as well as an effort to reassure the public, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is offering testing kits to people living along the west coast of the U.S. and Canada so they can test the water themselves. Samples of seawater taken while strolling on beaches can be sent back to Woods Hole for analysis.

But while testing the ocean for radiation levels is important, there is another invisible contaminant in the water that is being overlooked and which is already doing much more harm to the fisheries: ocean acidification.

Since the industrial revolution, about one-third of the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels has been absorbed by the oceans, making the water more acidic.

Without diminishing the significance of several hundred tonnes of radioactive water released from Fukushima into the ocean, its effect on sea life is dwarfed by the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide being absorbed by sea water every day.

Payne said humans may not ultimately release as much carbon dioxide as the Siberian Traps, but we may be doing it at a faster rate. The end-Permian extinction could be viewed as a "worst-case scenario" for what we could be facing as we burn more fossil fuels and increase ocean acidity, he said.http://news.stanford.edu/news/...tinction-042710.html

So what happened 252 million years ago to cause those physiological stresses in marine animals? Additional clues from carbon, calcium and nitrogen isotopes of the period, as well as from organic geochemistry, suggest a “perturbation of the global carbon cycle,” the scientists’ second paper concluded — a huge infusion of carbon into the atmosphere and the ocean.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012....html?pagewanted=all